Friday, August 17, 2012

Fayette County

Our travel through the archaeology of
Pennsylvania takes us to Fayette County this week in the southwest corner of
the state. A relatively high number,
543, archaeological sites have been recorded in this county in the Pennsylvania
Archaeological Site Survey (PASS) files.
Eighty percent of the recorded sites are prehistoric, with the majority
occurring in upland settings. Archaeological
evidence in this region supports dates for human occupation as early as the
Paleoindian Period (16,500-10,000 years ago). The Paleoindian landscape was
primarily composed of pine and hemlock forests which supported large fauna such
as deer, caribou, elk and bear.
Gradual warming allowed these forests to change and regenerate into a
mixed hardwood forest of oak-hickory hemlock-beech assemblage. The change in
forest composition improved the support capability for smaller fauna and new
flora, which could sustain an increase in occupation. Increases in population and the transition
from hunters and gatherers to an agricultural society through time are evident in the
archaeological record.

The Martin site 36Fa87

The first systematic archaeological
investigations in Fayette County took place in late summer and early fall 1941
at two Monongahela villages: the Martin (36FA87) and Phillips (36FA22)
sites. Local citizen outcry over the
threat to destroy archaeological sites by the construction of the Youghiogheny
Reservoir prompted the Pennsylvania Historical Commission (precursor to today’s
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission) to sponsor salvage excavations
at the Martin site. The PHC also supported
salvage excavations at the Phillips site, whose destruction was also impending as part of
construction of proposed highway development.
Francis Cresson, a Harvard Ph.D. student, was chosen to lead the
investigations and Edgar E. Augustine supervised the small field crew. Augustine was well experienced in the
investigation of Monongahela villages, as he led the Works Progress
Administration crew from 1935 to 1940 in adjacent Somerset County (for details,
see http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/new_deal_archaeology/4671

Monongahela ceramic vessels from Martin and Phillips sites

Neither Martin nor Phillips was completely
excavated. However, the Martin site is currently under the waters of the
Youghiogheny River, it cannot be studied. The highway that threatened the Phillips site was never built, but the site was later destroyed by a strip mine. Fortunately, extensive collections of field records,
correspondence, photographs, and archaeological material were preserved from
both sites. These are held by the
Division of Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania. Both sites have been the subject of recent
study, including a re-examination of the mortuary data at the Martin site
(Goodman 2011), and general re-analysis and historical study of the Martin and
Phillips sites (Means 2008, 2010). Using
curated organic carbonized remains, radiocarbon dates were obtained from the Phillips
site, suggesting that this circular village dated to the early fifteenth
century A.D. Artifacts from both sites have been actively incorporated into a
project for creating dynamic three-dimensional digital models of key
artifacts from throughout the eastern United States http://vcuarchaeology3d.wordpress.com/ Systematic
research and scanning of these collections demonstrates the value of curated
collections for archaeologists and aids in our understanding of the
archaeological past.

3-D animation courtesy B. Means

Recent investigations into Monongahela villages were conducted at site 36Fa368, Gray’s Landing, in connection with the construction of a new lock and dam on the Monongahela
River. Archaeological and Historical Consultants (A
& HC) under contract with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted
archaeological investigations there in 1988. The study documented a Late Prehistoric period (ca. AD 1050-1630)
hamlet of the Monongahela Culture occupied repeatedly, probably during the
latter part of this period. This site type represents a variation on the
better-known stockaded Monongahela villages, usually situated on hilltops and
river terraces. The site contains several house patterns, numerous domestic
features, and burials, in addition to a variety of other Monongahela
artifacts. The analysis of the assemblage and the features suggests
repeated occupation during the late fall and early spring by small groups
engaged primarily in fishing and other riverine related activities. Comparison with
the evidence from other Monongahela hamlets, indicated that the
Monongahela settlement pattern included settlement types other than the typical
circular stockaded villages. Seasonal movement to small camps on the river, and
probably elsewhere, were performed for the purpose of exploiting specific
seasonal food resources.

Evidence of these Monongahela villages disappeared from the landscape by the time settlers began to arrive in the
1750’s. Christopher Gist surveyed the
area for the Ohio Company, a Virginia based Land Company. The French occupied the western frontier and
controlled the trade route south into the Louisiana Territory, which was then under
French control. Approximately 160
Provincial troops led by Lt. Col. George Washington arrived at Great Meadows,
Wharton Township on May 24, 1754.
Washington had been ordered to the region by Governor Dinwiddie to
support troops tasked with erecting a fort at the forks of the Allegheny and
Monongahela Rivers, present day Pittsburgh.
The French however, drove British forces out before Washington arrived
and began construction of Fort Duquesne, forcing the British to relocate their
fort. Washington had his own skirmish
near Great Meadows with a small force of French which resulted in the death of
Sieur de Jumonville, referred to by historians as “the Jumonville
Incident”. Some have championed the notion that this
skirmish was the opening “battle” of the French & Indian War. Great Meadows, as referred to as Fort
Necessity http://www.nps.gov/fone/index.htm , served as a supply base and camp for the Washington’s
troops which had been reinforced and numbered to around four hundred. After the British troops were forced out of
their previous position along the Monongahela, Washington was instructed to build a road to support movement of heavy artillery and to erect a fort at
the mouth of Redstone Creek, present day Brownsville. Troops were working on
the western side of the road to Redstone when word was received that a large
group of French and Indians were advancing from Fort Duquesne. Washington’s forces quickly returned to Great
Meadows camp and hastily fortified their position with a circular stockade. On July 3, 1754 an attack by
French forces ended with the surrender of Fort Necessity by the British and its
subsequent burning by French troops.

Fort Necessity excavation plan view

Archaeology conducted at Fort Necessity by
the National Park Service exposed portions of the stockade, preserved by
water. It was determined that the
stockade was built from white oak, split in two, with the split, or flat side
facing out. Logs ranged in size from 7
to 13 inches in diameter, ends were cut with axes prior to placement in a
stockade trench. Excavations also
provided information on how the fort was destroyed by the French. The archaeology indicated that about
three-fourths of the stockade posts had been pulled out and stacked against the
remaining section of stockade before the fort was set afire.
Some logs were burned in separate piles, possible to destroy other supplies
and prevent British forces from returning to the fort to salvage them. Most significantly, archaeology revealed the
physical construction of the fort and stockade line which was not recorded in
historic documentation and permitted accurate reconstruction for the benefit of
future generations.

Special thanks this week to Dr. Bernard K. Means who
contributed with the images and text for the Martin and Phillips sites. We hope
you have enjoyed this trip down to Fayette County and will take an interest in
recording and preserving the archaeological sites in your community. These resources are Pennsylvania’s heritage
and for all of us it is our window into the past. Help us to protect and preserve these
archaeological resources which are crucial to our understanding of the past.

References

Goodman, Taryn

2011 Bare
Bones: An Analysis of Mortuary Data from the Martin Site, Fayette County,
Pennsylvania. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia
66:162-168.

Harrington, J.C.

1957
New Light on Washington’s Fort Necessity; A Report on the Archaeological
Explorations at Fort Necessity National Battlefield Site. Eastern National Park
and Monument Association, Richmond, Va.

No comments:

Post a Comment

One Tank Trip

WFMZ-TV 69 from Reading, Pennsylvania visited The State Museum of Pennsylvania on February 8th, 2017. Karin Mallett prepared a feature piece on great places to visit that are one tank of gas from Reading and our gallery was the focus of this visit. Karin interviewed Kurt Carr, Senior Curator and Janet Johnson in the gallery and provide a nice overview of the spectacular exhibits. Please click on the link below and enjoy this glimpse of the museum during this One Tank Trip!
One Tank Trip: Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology

Followers

Disclaimer:

The views contained within do not necessarily reflect those of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) as a whole, nor the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.Comments and discussion are encouraged. However, posts that are deemed inappropriate or offensive will be removed. Users will not be notified when content is removed.